Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MR and LL Heading in the Wrong Direction?  (Read 21607 times)
E Slagle
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


« on: March 31, 2008, 09:38:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I mean this as a construction criticism and not to flame...

Perhaps the greatest strength of Luminous Landscape and MR is the pithy content without being self-righteous or overtly controversial. The result, I believe has lead to an outstanding discussion board with many of the industries leaders freqently contributing. This I appreciate very much!

However, this past month LL has been wrought with controversy. I'm ok with "Your Camera Does Matter" and most of the baggage that followed; today though with the "Editor's Note" accompanying Sean Reid's article, I think, has 'crossed the line.'

The 'Editor's Note' is simply foolish and ridden with ego. I really hope the LL ship can be corrected and return to its roots. Please...

Good day, Eric
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4729



« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2008, 09:55:04 AM »
ReplyReply

No. It will not be changed, because it says what I think and what I feel. If this is not to your likeing then there is little that I can do about it.

I can not respond to the opinions of a million different people each month (literally); only to what's in my own mind and heart.

Michael
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 10:23:55 AM by michael » Logged
Joe Behar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2008, 10:05:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the "Editor's Note" accompanying Sean Reid's article, I think, has 'crossed the line.'

The 'Editor's Note' is simply foolish and ridden with ego. I really hope the LL ship can be corrected and return to its roots. Please...

Good day, Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Eric,

This is not directed at you solely but rather as a general statement.

Have any readers here thought about the fact that this site is wholly owned by Michael? It is the way he makes his living and he is not only entitled to but has an obligation to, in my opinion, make his views known?

Michael has graciously made these forums available to anyone who wants them at no charge and with very little interference in what his GUESTS say about him and his website.

Inevitably, no good deed goes unpunished.

Its beyond me how so many people can accept someone's hospitality, help and advice and when an opinion comes up that is not to their liking make statements that are bodering on a personal attack.

If you don't like what someone has to say, you are all fre to put up your own website or publish a blog of your own, visit other forums and sites or just simply ignore it, but you have absolutely ZERO right to come into someone's "house" and insult them. I don't think any readers of this site would acept that kind of behaviour from one of their guests.
Logged
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2008, 10:14:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Eric,

This is not directed at you solely but rather as a general statement.

Have any readers here thought about the fact that this site is wholly owned by Michael? It is the way he makes his living and he is not only entitled to but has an obligation to, in my opinion, make his views known?

Michael has graciously made these forums available to anyone who wants them at no charge and with very little interference in what his GUESTS say about him and his website.

Inevitably, no good deed goes unpunished.

Its beyond me how so many people can accept someone's hospitality, help and advice and when an opinion comes up that is not to their liking make statements that are bordering on a personal attack.

If you don't like what someone has to say, you are all fre to put up your own website or publish a blog of your own, visit other forums and sites or just simply ignore it, but you have absolutely ZERO right to come into someone's "house" and insult them. I don't think any readers of this site would acept that kind of behaviour from one of their guests.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I fully agree with you Joe.
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2008, 10:16:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael can write whatever he wants on his website.  Almost all the time what he writes is excellent.  Michael used very good judgment in allowing Sean to write a follow-up.   I hold Michael's opinions in high regard.  

I regret that he called his readers "sub-optimal reader(s)" and compared them to ten year olds.  Micheal appears angry in his writing on this topic and that is an unattractive quality that sullies his good reputation.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
E Slagle
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2008, 10:18:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Eric,


Its beyond me how so many people can accept someone's hospitality, help and advice and when an opinion comes up that is not to their liking make statements that are bodering on a personal attack.

If you don't like what someone has to say, you are all fre to put up your own website or publish a blog of your own, visit other forums and sites or just simply ignore it, but you have absolutely ZERO right to come into someone's "house" and insult them. I don't think any readers of this site would acept that kind of behaviour from one of their guests.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The REAL issue, as I see it, is respect. I respect Micheal very much; his wonderful efforts have made LL into what it is. However, respect over time can be degraded and comments made in the "Editor's Note" (and others recently) are beginning to erode that respect to some degree.

My comment was a criticism and a fairly harsh one; I made this because I wanted to express an 'outsiders' recent perspective. MR is clearly a very bright man and I'm sure he can distinguish between a criticism and a personal insult/attack as you say.

If I'm in the minority--and I very well may be--on this perspective then I will have no trouble in re-evaluating my erroneous view.

Eric
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7441



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2008, 10:24:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Eric,

This is not directed at you solely but rather as a general statement.

Have any readers here thought about the fact that this site is wholly owned by Michael? It is the way he makes his living and he is not only entitled to but has an obligation to, in my opinion, make his views known?

Michael has graciously made these forums available to anyone who wants them at no charge and with very little interference in what his GUESTS say about him and his website.

Inevitably, no good deed goes unpunished.

Its beyond me how so many people can accept someone's hospitality, help and advice and when an opinion comes up that is not to their liking make statements that are bodering on a personal attack.

If you don't like what someone has to say, you are all fre to put up your own website or publish a blog of your own, visit other forums and sites or just simply ignore it, but you have absolutely ZERO right to come into someone's "house" and insult them. I don't think any readers of this site would acept that kind of behaviour from one of their guests.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very well put.

-A very different Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4729



« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2008, 10:28:53 AM »
ReplyReply

My reading comprehension remark was not aimed at anyone on this forum, or any discussion here either.

Unfortunately there is one well known discussion forum on the net where a great many trolls and know-nothings hang out, and it was there that people with what I ingraciously described as having sub-optimum reading skills reside.

I have a pretty thick skin, but occasionally it makes me feel a little better when I have an opportunity to offer a mild jibe at some of my less charitable critics. Not terribly mature of me, I know, but maybe as I get older I'll grow up a bit (or grow an ever thicker skin).  

Or – maybe I've just been hanging out with the irascible Mr. Schewe too much.  

Michael
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 10:30:30 AM by michael » Logged
dng88
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2008, 11:41:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I do not agree that you always have to nice to the host.  The whole reason you want to have a forum is to discuss and debate.  Shut down different opinion and 3 cheers to the host is not a good idea.  Whilst I understand that Michael cannot and probably shall not listen to all million people say or bend his principle and view, having and appreciate a different counterpoint is important.

I feel a bit sad about the whole scenario.  I subscribe to Michael and Sean.  Not that a few dollars matter to them or as Michael seem to say, care about some of his reader's opinion, but I just care about theirs.  However, to attack Ken Rockwell (which I cannot say I have paid one dollar to him) is strange.  Part of my major reads are Michael, Sean and him.  I hope the other guys would not join in; please not Thom and Bjørn Rørslett. No.

Ken is of a different kind of writer.  He does not, based upon my reading of his web site after so many years, really say that the camera does not matter.  Until recently, a lot of his photos are done by 4x5 and he still said that.  

Why is there such a fight?  Perhaps, instead of feeling sad, may I perhaps try to say a bit different.  An opinion may not be that matter to Michael or Sean but perhaps it may add to the overall discussion, if there is any.  

The key important guiding point I would say is 1) can the site has us to appreciate what the artist do even though one may not the artist and 2) can the site help one to extend oneself to know more, perhaps by trying more (even out of one's depth).

In this regards, I would not go in depth in this Michael owned web site to explain what we have learnt from him e.g. expose to the right, horse of course etc. and in Sean case, how the idea that ranger finder is still relevant today.  They gave us food of thought which I knew I would not know by myself.  

But Ken also helped a bit here.

For example, after reading his web site, I tried 4x5 and learnt a lot about film handling, the wooden camera, how to deal with perspective (by buying books he recommended).  Taking photos on something in reverse with a lope is quite interesting.   I guess I would not do this if I just read Michael and Sean site.  May be they have said something about it, but it does not motive you as Ken site does.  Sometimes Michael and Sean is a bit too serious.  Sorry to say that but that American is funny and lighthearted to the extent that he can push you over your fence without knowing it.

Also, one reason at that time I started to read his web site (when I am reading Michael) is that he is providing a counterpoint to Michael.  He is on a different type of camera (Nikon, for more professional one I know one would have to go to Thom and Bjorn -- which I still remember the first time I read Bjorn into the night ...).  Of course, you cannot completely trust on face value a guy who do review of lens by reading brochure some of the times.  But he stated so for those review he did this vs those he owned and tried.  Along this line, the difference could be very striking.  For example, he still talked about 4x5, he still talked about 5D lately, he still talk about old manual Nikon lens on D3.

As an aid to learner, I think Ken has its place.  He is not perfect and has been attacked being inconsistent etc. in a lot of web sites, many of which I am not care unlike this one.  But some of this points are really based upon actual experience of a guy who try to learn and does not restrict oneself to mainly new and expensive.

In fact, one thing attract to me is that may be perhaps he talk about something we can try and he is emphasis about it for a while (e.g. Casio Digital Camera is really fast compared with others I have tried on).  

Overall he is very unlike Michael in style.  But one must point out as in some previous submit on Michael previous article, that overall speaking, he has no difference in his opinion in many aspects and substances (even about the camera does matter).  He may say in a very funny way.  But as a reader of his site, you simply know.

In general, Michael doing something we can look at remotely and only on DVD (which I purchase all or unfortunately now has to be downloaded which I no doubt will lose some).  I can only recall Michael talk about a Digital Camera of $10 once. Other than perhaps Canon G9 and recently Ricoh GX100, I really a bit hard time to recall something in the level we can try on.  Even his Contax and Rolli (?) is a bit high on the bill.  Perhaps his professional years of the twin lens camera era is ok.  Otherwise, only very lately I found that I have the same equipment as Michael used in his front page (D300 and 70-200).   Of course, that is Michael.  We want to see him extend the boundary as an artist.  But still and well, whilst I like to agree with Sean on Van Gough,  I did know that even Van Gough has used straw he picked on the field to draw some of his drafts.  Not just every time to get his brother to pay, may I say.  He cared the tool, but still he enthustically draw if he has limited equipment and wealth to spend with.  In that sense, if Michael sometimes talk about something we can use and experiment with e.g. 5D and 24-120 lens compared with D3 and 24-70.  What are the difference in its draw (as Sean would say).  Not another dpreview but a serious artist would say.

Please do not mistake me.  Being on this site and subscribe and buying all LL DVDs meant that I do enjoy very much artists talk to artist (like the one Michael talked with the Breaded men who seemed to be quite frequent now as he is also in the Lightroom Tutorial; btw, quite like the doggie who run away).  Still, as part of the "prosumer" group or a bit serious but not rich amateur group, I think I would think that the world without Ken (and for that matter, Michael and Sean) would be very sad.  In fact, this whole debate is a bit sad as it does not give us reader anything "useful" but just mud throwing between two (now three) guys who are next to each other in my Safari Tabbed group.  May be I separate them a bit in the tabbed group and it may help. A senseless thinking perhaps, just as the whole "debate" is senseless.

Well, just my opinion and mainly perhaps to claim myself down.  I hope it does not spoil the party and angered the host.
Logged
jecxz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 377


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2008, 11:46:56 AM »
ReplyReply

My goodness; what I want to know is how so many of you have so much time in the day for all this back and forth? I'm trying to keep up with all of this back and forth.

Are you all wealthy? You don't have to work? How do you have all this extra time?

Michael, great forum, don't agree all the time (so what), but please post the "Cliff Notes" link.
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2008, 02:16:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you all wealthy? You don't have to work? How do you have all this extra time?

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Lol, well you have to do something whilst scanning those negs and slides!

Interesting remark by Michael, wonder what he exactly is saying though. Ala the well known forum where ill informed trolls gather..obviously DPreview, though if you do bother to look, there is some useful information on that site in the forums.

If you look at the heated debates on there, it's 98% down to my nikon smokes your canon, posted in the canon forum etc etc. Or did I miss a recent gripping thread which has upset Michael??

One should always remember, that its important to not take these things so personal. I don't agree with Michael on a number of areas, but that does not kill the element of having some respect. I do think that the entire debate on this camera does not matter, has possibly gone on a bit now.

Maybe we should start on something new?

[a href=\"http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm]http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm[/url]

What about Ken's infamous "megapixel myth", or maybe we could use another round of "digital V film" again ;-)
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 02:33:33 PM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1251


« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2008, 02:33:00 PM »
ReplyReply

My only complaint about Michael's introduction and the "sub-optimal reading skills" line was that he didn't add "sub-optimal thinking skills." Nobody in their right mind thinks cameras don't matter. The whole "controversy" must have been supported by people who didn't bother to read the article. Sean's article adds some interesting perspective, but wasn't really necessary. The original was clear enough.

JC
Logged
sreidvt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2008, 02:58:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I
I feel a bit sad about the whole scenario.  I subscribe to Michael and Sean.  Not that a few dollars matter to them or as Michael seem to say, care about some of his reader's opinion, but I just care about theirs.  However, to attack Ken Rockwell (which I cannot say I have paid one dollar to him) is strange. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi DNG88,

I'm not sure why you feel that I was attacking Ken Rockwell.  I wrote an essay about why photographic tools matter but are not the essence of photography.  I made no reference to Mr. Rockwell at all. I'm glad that you enjoy RR.

Cheers,

Sean
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 02:59:38 PM by sreidvt » Logged
gunnar1
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2008, 05:46:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh for the love of Pete, doesn't a guy have a right be pissed off once in awhile? Frankly if it were me there'd be an awful lot more venting...
Logged
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2008, 06:18:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I mean this as a construction criticism and not to flame...

Perhaps the greatest strength of Luminous Landscape and MR is the pithy content without being self-righteous or overtly controversial. The result, I believe has lead to an outstanding discussion board with many of the industries leaders freqently contributing. This I appreciate very much!

However, this past month LL has been wrought with controversy. I'm ok with "Your Camera Does Matter" and most of the baggage that followed; today though with the "Editor's Note" accompanying Sean Reid's article, I think, has 'crossed the line.'

The 'Editor's Note' is simply foolish and ridden with ego. I really hope the LL ship can be corrected and return to its roots. Please...

Good day, Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I was so surprised at several of the posts in this thread, I had to go back and re-read what Michael wrote.

I am still surprised. What he said makes total sense to me, quite apart from his right to say it, and I simply cannot understand the negative reactions. As I cannot understand them, I won't say any more about them

And Sean Reid's essay is outstanding. Well said, Sean.

Bill
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2008, 06:58:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Been said before, and this is what I get out of all this..my view is:

"You camera matters, but a lot less, than what you do with it"

Michael may mock those for in his words "Duhhhh! Of course talent and artistic skill are also necessary"...but its just as dumb to point out you need xyz tools/gear for certain photographic tasks. State the obvious..gasp.

I don't think people are that thick! Either way..

In the grand scheme of things, most sites are based heavily on tech talk, and nothing wrong with that. Most places talk about the elusive "image quality", and test it in just about every way possible. What we really should be talking about, is "quality images"
That is the real rub. I dont go into galleries and take a microscope to test out the print quality, I dont care really what was used to take the shot. Does it work, do I like it??

I neither up or downgrade a photo based on the equipment used. Again, this states the obvious. Tools that are used are subjective at best, you might like that M8 loads, I might not..who gives cares anyway? Do I need an article pointing out to me that my hanimex 110 film cheapo isnt the ideal choice for low light sports shooting? Um no I do not..thanks very much..

Instead we find an article telling us about shutters and you need a lens..well you dont say!!! Breaking news to me. I will just pull my knuckles up off the ground..because its all too much to take in..

The entire Rebuttal piece is based on telling us what we already know. Wow what a revelation indeed. What counts more Michael..you or the camera? You tell me..I think we know the real answer to that one. You seemed to do well with that cheap minolta stuff you had in the 60's.. Maybe Ken Rockwell should have stated the obvious in his article too, yeah you will have limitations with that pinhole, again a bit obvious to all.

Photography is about taking photos, amazingly..a fact that often escapes us all at the best of times. And before anyone comes blasting in, I am not saying there is no merit talking about is this a good lens choice, xyz..is this suited to that. I am talking about what counts, and what REALLY matters, that folks is the image.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 07:02:51 PM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2008, 07:12:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was so surprised at several of the posts in this thread, I had to go back and re-read what Michael wrote.

I am still surprised. What he said makes total sense to me, quite apart from his right to say it, and I simply cannot understand the negative reactions. As I cannot understand them, I won't say any more about them
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hadn't read the article when I came upon this thread.  After reading the thread, I expected some kind of outlandish statements on Michael's part.  However, I didn't see anything in the article to warrant a strong reaction.  Much ado about nothing.

PS Nice article by Sean Reid.

--John
Logged
Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2008, 07:25:48 PM »
ReplyReply

The first paragraph of Sean Reids essay is spot on.  Very good!

Please keep up the very good work Michael.


don
Logged

fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2008, 08:21:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My reading comprehension remark was not aimed at anyone on this forum, or any discussion here either.

Unfortunately there is one well known discussion forum on the net where a great many trolls and know-nothings hang out, and it was there that people with what I ingraciously described as having sub-optimum reading skills reside.

I have a pretty thick skin, but occasionally it makes me feel a little better when I have an opportunity to offer a mild jibe at some of my less charitable critics. Not terribly mature of me, I know, but maybe as I get older I'll grow up a bit (or grow an ever thicker skin). 

Or – maybe I've just been hanging out with the irascible Mr. Schewe too much.  

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have stopped reading that forum altogether.  The ratio of useful contributors to trollish fanboys has gotten so low as to make it an irritating and worthless read.

It is interesting that the topic of the importance of equipment has such legs across the forums.  There is certainly a lot of discussion.  I doubt the issue is closed.  I think, as Sean pointed out, as long as the manufacturers are doing so much marketing people will always perceive that a new camera will make them better photographers.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2008, 10:33:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Or – maybe I've just been hanging out with the irascible Mr. Schewe too much.
Yes, it's the Schewe effect :-)  I know I get all worked up after reading his posts.
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad